Op wo 11 mrt. 2020 om 14:25 schreef 'ra' via OsmAnd <[email protected] >:
> superb, harry! was that done with setting FASTEST route or ENERGY SAVING? > without being able to award you ANY price (besides a beer to be picked up > here ;-) I would so very much like to see THESE very interesting > differences. and to the above with the added setting AVOID HIGHWAYS - we > all could learn so much! > It was default settings, so: prefer highways, fastest route. I will do some more calculations. > already your statement of HC1.0 being wrong seems undoubtably proven. > > Ho, stop. I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was over the top calculating a "theoretically" 100% correct route. In earlier days Victor also participated in some of these discussions where he defended the hc=1.0. The big problem (as I see it) is that OsmAnd can't calculate long routes. The answer is: "You have to add waypoints", and that is also what OsmAnd suggests. That immediately and completely ruins the hc=1.0 model. If you have to add waypoints, how do you know you choose the optimal waypoint for the total route? Maybe you should have chosen another waypoint. Anyway: This discussion will never end. Users have to choose for themselves what they want. I only want to give examples in how OsmAnd can also be used. Harry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OsmAnd" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/CAGARPptb01ErPpZC3XQBLXYGiKdwH87K3K4U8A%2BEB1ysPS1y-Q%40mail.gmail.com.
